Topic: Unsure if a post contains fatal vore or non-fatal vore because of TWYS conflicting with what commissioner said

I came across post https://e621.net/posts/6212458 and when checking the comments I noticed someone pointed out the post should have the non_fatal_vore tag removed and both the tags fatal_vore and snuff added. This is because the post had the tag death, had the tag cum_vore, and the tag digestion.

It appears as they prey is absorbed by the predator and does not live on/get reformed. I made the tag changes and also gave a friendly comment basically saying thanks for pointing it out, you can also edit the tags yourself in the future, etc.

Someone removed the snuff tag that I added, which they were right in doing. I read the description of it and thought it applied, but didn't notice the disclaimer at the bottom which said that it didn't apply in cases of vore, so my apologies. I usually try and make sure that the edits I make are 100% correct before publishing.

The commissioner added another edit removing the death and fatal_vore tag and added back the non_fatal_vore tag. The edit reason says the following:

Its not fatal vore, I know cause I commissioned it XD

I'm usually not one to make tag edits on a regular basis. The commissioner said that the post doesn't contain fatal vore, but the post seems to visually show fatal vore. This has left me conflicted as to which tags would apply in this instance. The wiki page for tag_what_you_see says the following:

For example, you can tag character a if the artist claims that a disembodied hand in the post belongs to character a, unless the hand looks nothing like character a and instead looks exactly like it belongs to character b. In that case, TWYS overrides the artist's word.

I have also just noticed that the post also contains the goo_creature tag. However, the post does not seem to show any sort of living goo creature/reformation. It appears to be digestion. This is another case where I'm unsure if the tag belongs. The tag_what_you_see wiki page includes the following section:

Tags in the Character and Species categories are partially dependent upon TWYS: that is, external information can be used to help identify what character or species is supposed to be depicted in the post in cases where it isn't obvious, but it cannot actively conflict with what is seen in the post.

With that being said, I have made this forum topic to hopefully figure out what the correct tags are in this instance as I cannot determine it myself. I also hope to learn something from this interaction so that way I know what to or what not to do in the future if a situation like this happens again.

Ok, I'm at work, so I have not reviewed it carefully, but I'll just make 2 points.
1. The commissioner can add the relevant _(lore) tag should one exists, but that's the end of their authority on the matter; if a character is shot in the head, appear to die, & then we see them get buried, but the commissioner said they're actually immortal & gets up after the end of the animation, that's nice, but it's still getting tagged death. TWYS has sole domain over general tags.
2. That said, people are frequently tripped up by just how explicitly a vore... victim? Voree? Person getting vored must be dead to qualify for fatal_vore, so it is a real possibility that the commissioner got the right answer, but with the wrong justification.

I'd double check the fatal_vore wiki & see if it applies.

aacafah said:
Ok, I'm at work, so I have not reviewed it carefully, but I'll just make 2 points.
1. The commissioner can add the relevant _(lore) tag should one exists, but that's the end of their authority on the matter; if a character is shot in the head, appear to die, & then we see them get buried, but the commissioner said they're actually immortal & gets up after the end of the animation, that's nice, but it's still getting tagged death. TWYS has sole domain over general tags.
2. That said, people are frequently tripped up by just how explicitly a vore... victim? Voree? Person getting vored must be dead to qualify for fatal_vore, so it is a real possibility that the commissioner got the right answer, but with the wrong justification.

I'd double check the fatal_vore wiki & see if it applies.

i've already added the tag and checked the wiki, this instance due to the loss of the character within the ballsack and promptly cumming afterwards that doesn't expel her, it's safe to assume she died.

siral_exan said:
i've already added the tag and checked the wiki, this instance due to the loss of the character within the ballsack and promptly cumming afterwards that doesn't expel her, it's safe to assume she died.

Should the goo_creature tag be removed as well? There doesn't seem to be any goo creature prevalent. I assume it was added because the commissioner may have intended for the character to be reformed into cum, but again, that is clearly not shown. Also the non_fatal_vore tag was still on the post, however I just removed it considering the previous reasoning.

If they are repeatedly incorrectly editing the tags, don't fight with them over it, just report it and we'll take care of it.

aacafah said:
If they are repeatedly incorrectly editing the tags, don't fight with them over it, just report it and we'll take care of it.

They just edited the post one minute ago as of typing this. So far they've done this twice. I just submit a report about it. I don't know if two edits when previous edit reasons clarified TWYS has domain over general tags is enough to submit a report, but I assume it would be.

That's the right choice; remember, we can also lock the correct tags in place if they don't stop, so it's better to just let us make the determination so you're not on the hook if we ruled against you (although I'd highly doubt that being the outcome in this case).